NIK ANIRA BINTI NIK MOHD ZAIN (sebagai pentadbir kepada pusaka NIK MOHD ZAIN BIN HAJI OMAR) v BANK KERJASAMA RAKYAT MALAYSIA BERHAD

Case Significance

Addresses a stale claim on six 1997 Al-Mudharabah Investment Certificates discovered 22 years later, weighing the evidential value of the certificates against direct testimony and a presumption of payment after long delay, and considering limitation under section 6(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1950 and laches.

This High Court (Kuala Lumpur, Commercial Division) decision determines a claim by the administrator of a deceased's estate against Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Berhad for payment of RM4,000,000 plus profits in relation to six Al-Mudharabah Investment Certificates issued by the bank to the deceased in 1997. The administrator's case was that the bank had wrongfully refused to honour the six certificates, which were discovered by the deceased's daughter in September 2019, some 22 years after the investment was made. The bank opposed the claim, contending that the investments had been withdrawn by the deceased before 1999. The trial spanned about eleven days, during which fifteen witnesses testified, six for the plaintiff and nine for the bank.

The issues addressed included whether the Al-Mudharabah Investment Certificates were prima facie evidence of sums held by the bank, the burden of proof, and whether, after a considerable lapse of time, a presumption of payment arose. The court considered that possession of the certificates was not conclusive, weighed the direct witness testimony against the certificates, and had regard to the bank's records and a system migration, to the limitation of automatic renewal to five years, to the Unclaimed Monies Act 1965, and to the non-declaration of the investment or certificates in bankruptcy proceedings, together with matters said to reflect high-net-worth client privileges and telephone withdrawals.

The court also addressed limitation under section 6(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1950 and the doctrine of laches, considering when the cause of action accrued, whether on the maturity of the certificates, against the background of the 22-year delay. In weighing the competing accounts the court preferred credible direct evidence over the mere possession of the certificates after so long a lapse of time. The judgment illustrates how a court evaluates a stale claim on Islamic investment certificates, the evidential weight of the certificates, the presumption of payment after long delay, and the limitation and laches defences.